Skip to main content

Full text of "Reality in quantum mechanics, Extended Everett Concept, and consciousness"

See other formats

Reality in quantum mechanics, 
Extended Everett Concept, and consciousness 

Michael B. Mensky 

P.N.Lebedev Physical Institute, 53 Leninsky prosp., 119991 Moscow, Russia 


Conceptual problems in quantum mechanics result from the spe- 
cific quantum concept of reality and require, for their solution, in- 
cluding the observer's consciousness into quantum theory of measure- 
ments. Most naturally this is achieved in the framework of Everett's 
"many-worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics. According to 
this interpretation, various classical alternatives are perceived by con- 
sciousness separately from each other. In the Extended Everett Con- 
cept (EEC) proposed by the present author, the separation of the 
alternatives is identified with the phenomenon of consciousness. This 
explains classical character of the alternatives and unusual manifesta- 
tions of consciousness arising "at the edge of consciousness" (i.e. in 
sleep or trance) when its access to "other alternative classical realities" 
(other Everett's worlds) becomes feasible. Because of reversibility of 
quantum evolution in EEC, all time moments in the quantum world 
are equivalent while the impression of flow of time appears only in 
consciousness. If it is assumed that consciousness may influence onto 
probabilities of alternatives (which is consistent in case of infinitely 
many Everett's worlds), EEC explains free will, "probabilistic mira- 
cles" (observing low-probability events) and decreasing entropy in the 
sphere of life. 


1 Introduction 

Paradoxes of quantum mechanics and the resulting so-called "problem of 
measurement" are known from the early years of quantum mechanics, but are 
not finally resolved up to now. An essential step in the attempts to solve these 
problems was made by Everett in its famous "many-worlds" interpretation of 
quantum mechanics In our days the Everett's approach became much 

more popular. One of the reasons is that it may in a sense be connected 
with the problem of consciousness (see, e.g., IH El El El ) • Here we shall 
discuss the approach called Extended Everett Concept (EEC) suggested by 
the author jHlinilinillll- This approach allows one to introduce the connection 
between quantum mechanics and consciousness in a very natural way. The 
resulting advantage is that some features of consciousness as well as some 
known but not yet explained phenomena of life directly follow from EEC. 
Moreover, it directly follows from EEC that these phenomena appear in a 
special state of consciousness which may be described as being "at the edge 
of consciousness" that may be identified as sleep or trance. 

In Sect. 121 we shall very briefly show how conceptual problems of quantum 
mechanics follow from the contradiction between its linearity and the postu- 
late of reduction in the description of quantum measurements. In Sect.Elthe 
interpretation of quantum mechanics suggested by Everett for overcoming 
this contradiction will be presented as well as its extension (EEC) leading to 
the quantum definition of consciousness. Finally in Sect. 01 important con- 
sequences of EEC (such as the explanation of the phenomenon of life, free 
will and permanent support of health in an organism) will be reviewed. In 
Sect. El a short conclusion will be given. 

2 Quantum measurements: theory and para- 

There is no need to discuss the conceptual problems (paradoxes) of quantum 
mechanics in detail because they are well known. Let us only mention that 
all of them follow from special features of the concept of reality in quantum 
mechanics. These features were first explicitly formulated in the paper by 
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen ^21, reformulated later in a more 
convenient form by John Bell [THl I14j. and experimentally confirmed in the 
experiments of A. Aspect fl5[ I16j. 


The essential difference of the quantum-mechanical concept of reality from 
usual classical reality is that in quantum mechanics the properties of material 
systems, as they are observed in a measurement, may not exist before the 
observation (measurement). If for example the measurement shows that a 
particle is located in one of two points Ai, A2, this particle may be located 
neither in Ai, nor in A2 before the measurement. This is the case if the state 
of the particle before the measurement, ip = ciipi + 02^2 > is a superposition 
of the states ipi, 1^2 localized correspondingly in Ai and A2. 

According to von Neumann reduction postulate, after the measurement 
distinguishing between these two alternatives, the system having been previ- 
ously in the state goes over into one of the states ■^i and ip2, with the cor- 
responding probabilities |cip and |c2p. This postulate corresponds to what 
is observed in real measurements, so the reduction postulate is accepted as 
the basis for the quantum-mechanical calculations. However, it contradicts 
to the linearity of quantum mechanics when the process of measurement is 
considered as an interaction of two systems (the measured system and the 
measuring device). 

Let the initial state of the device be $0 and the initial state of both 
systems, ipi^o, goes over, after the interaction described by the unitary evo- 
lution operator [/, into U'4>i^Q = i^i^i- Then it follows from the linearity 
of the operator U that the initial state ■0^o changes, in the course of the 
interaction, as follows: 

-^$0 Ulp^o = U{CiiJi+C2ij2)% = U{CiiJi^Q + C2lp2^o) = Ci1pi^i+C2lp2^2- 

If one include in the description not only the measuring device, but also the 
observer as one more physical system initially in the state Xo, and apply usual 
quantum-mechanical consideration to the three systems, then their evolution 
under the interaction will be given as follows: 

V^^OXO = (ClV^l + C2V^2)$0X0 CiV^i$iXi + C2'4'2^2X2- (l) 

Thus, the linearity of the quantum-mechanical evolution requires that 
both alternatives 1 and 2 forming the initial superposition ip exist also (in 
the superposition with the same coefficients) after the interaction with the 
measuring device. However, the description of the observation seems to re- 
quire the reduction, i.e. surviving only a single alternative. The same is of 
course valid in case when many alternatives are distinguished by the measure- 
ment, instead of two of them. The contradiction arises between the linearity 


of quantum mechanics and the picture of reduction presenting the observa- 
tion. This contradiction is actually the reason of the quantum-mechanical 
paradoxes, or conceptual problems. 

We see also that the problem is not overcome by the observer as a phys- 
ical body being included in the description of the measurement. The key 
role is therefore played not by the physical body of an observer but by her 

3 Everett ( "many- worlds" ) interpretation and 
its extension 

Everett's interpretation is sometimes estimated to be logically complicated. 
However, it seems complicated only from the point of view of macroscopic, 
and therefore classical, picture of what happens in the measurement. From 
the point of view of quantum mechanics the Everett's interpretation is quite 
simple. Indeed, it excludes the reduction postulate and recovers linear char- 
acter of quantum mechanics in full volume. Thus the paradoxical character of 
quantum mechanics is overcome not by inclusion new elements in the theory 
(and therefore making it more complicated) but by exclusion most unnatural 
elements of this theory. 

The Everett's interpretation is not so simple in its treating the picture 
arising before the eyes (in the consciousness) of the observer. We shall see 
however that this may be essentially simplified in the framework of the Ex- 
tended Everett Concept (EEC). 

3.1 Everett interpretation: taking quantum mechanics 

The logic of Everett's interpretation is very simple. We know that the evo- 
lution is linear in quantum mechanics. A measurement is nothing else than 
an interaction between the measured system and its environment (including 
the measuring device and the observer). Let us take these facts seriously 
and accept that the measurement is actually linear process. Then the state 
after the measurement has the form of a superposition, as in Eq. or in 


the corresponding formula with summation over many alternatives: 


Assuming the linearity, Everett must then somehow interpret all terms of 
the superposition in the right-hand-side of this equation, i.e. all alternative 
readouts of the measurement. All alternatives are in his concept equally real 
and should be considered on equal foot. How it may then occur that the 
observer perceives only one of these alternatives? The answer may also be 
read off from Eq. 0. This formula means that the state of the observer is 
described also by the various components included in the superposition. The 
component Xi describes the state of the observer in which she sees that the 
measuring device is in the state $j thus pointing out that the system is in 
the state ipi. This is the picture of a single 'Everett's world'. The triplets 
ipi^iXij with all possible i, coexist, forming the "Everett worlds", or, more 
precisely, alternative 'classical projections' of a single quantum world. All 
such "worlds", or alternative classical realities, coexist and are equally real 
(should be considered on equal foot). 

3.2 Extended Everett concept: quantum conscious- 
ness and life 

It is convenient for us to express the situation in the Everett's interpretation 
as follows. All classical alternatives are perceived by consciousness (of the 
observer), however the alternatives are separated by the consciousness: each 
alternative is perceived independently from the others. 

Note that all the observers in a single Everett's world (in the same classi- 
cal reality) see the same, their observations are in complete agreement with 
each other. This follows from the fact that the initial state with two ob- 
servers, Ciipi^oXo^^ Xo'^ will go over, after the measurement, into the state 

Ciipi^ixf^ X^^^ (the crossing terms with Xi^\f \ ^ 7^ j-, cannot emerge). 
We may now concentrate on the whole component of the superposition, 
= ipi^iXi rather than on its factors ipt, $i and Xi- The right-hand-side of 
Eq. Q takes then the form 



This equation presents a state of the whole quantum world as a superposition 
of classical (more precisely, close to classical, or quasiclassical) states of this 
world. In the previously introduced terms, the whole world contains both the 
measured system and its environment, including the observer. Now, to move 
further, we do not need the picture of measurement in these details. Instead, 
we may talk about the state of the (quantum) world as it is reflected in 
consciousness, hence the superposition of (quasi) classical states of the world. 

Now we have to do a decisive step, leading to the radical simplification 
of the whole concept and to very interesting consequences. Taking into ac- 
count that nobody knows actually what is consciousness, we assume that 
consciousness is nothing else than the separation of the alternatives. This 
identification of consciousness with the separation of the alternatives is a 
crucial point of the Extended Everett Concept developed in [HI El 1101 HI] ■ 
In this assumption, two unclear concepts, one from quantum mechanics and 
the other from psychology, are identified and thus "explain each other" . The 
whole concept becomes simpler. More important is that this leads to new 
and very interesting consequences. 

First of all, this explains why the alternatives in Eq. Q should be clas- 
sical. Instead of the vectors (classical alternatives) we could make use 
of the other vectors (linear combinations of \&j) to present the state of the 
quantum world \1/ as a superposition. Why have we to take those vectors 
which are close to classical states? Why the alternatives in the description 
of consciousness are (close to) classical? The answer is almost evident. 

Consciousness is a feature (and the principal feature) of living beings. 
(Note that here the term "consciousness" means the most primitive, or the 
most deep, level of consciousness, differing perceiving from not perceiving). 
If the picture of the world as it is appears in consciousness were far from 
classical, then, due to quantum non-locality, this would be a picture of a world 
with "locally unpredictable" behavior. The future of a restricted region in 
such a world could depend on events even in very distant regions. No strategy 
of surviving could be elaborated in such a world for a localized living being. 
Life (of the form we know) would be impossible. On the contrary, a (close 
to) classical state of the world is "locally predictable". The evolution of a 
restricted region of such a world essentially depends only on the events in 
this region or not too far from it. Influence of distant regions is negligible. 
Strategy of surviving can be elaborated in such a world for a localized living 
being. Therefore, classicality of the alternatives is a necessary condition 
for life. The very concept of life naturally arises in this way from EEC. 


4 At the edge of consciousness 

It is astonishing that EEC leads to very concrete conclusions about some 
special features and unusual abilities of consciousness and, even more as- 
tonishing, to the concrete characterization of the conditions providing these 
special abilities. Consciousness is predicted to manifest its unusual abili- 
ties when it is almost turned off, i.e. is in the state similar to sleeping or 
trance. The reason is that in this case consciousness, when working with the 
given classical alternative, may obtain information from the quantum world 
as a whole, i.e. from "other classical alternatives" . This conclusion follows 
from the definition of consciousness accepted in EEC. If, in addition to this 
definition, the assumption is accepted that consciousness may influence on 
probabilities of classical alternatives, then EEC leads also to some well known 
but not yet explained features of living organisms (such as free will). 

4.1 Information from 'other classical realities': Com- 
parison of alternative realities and predictions 

Let the state of the quantum world be presented by Eq. Q where each com- 
ponent \E'i of the superposition on the right-hand-side is a state presenting a 
'classical alternative' of the world. Consciousness perceives these alternatives 
separately from each other. Moreover, according to the definition accepted 
in EEC, consciousness is identified with separation of the alternatives. Com- 
plete disappearance of consciousness (for example in case of death) means 
complete disappearance of the separation (just as no separation exist in the 
description of non-alive matter, with no phenomenon of life) . If consciousness 
does not disappear but becomes weak (in the state of sleep or trance) then, 
arguing in the same logic, we have to conclude that the separation of alterna- 
tives becomes not absolute. The 'partitions' between the alternatives become 
transparent. When perceiving one of the alternative classical realities, the 
consciousness may then perceive also 'other alternative classical realities' (see 
Fig. HI). At the moment of returning to the full consciousness (absolute sep- 
aration) some part of the information from 'other realities' may be kept and 
exploited in the usual work of consciousness with 'its own' alternative. 

The same may be formulated in another form: in case of partial turning 
consciousness off (in the state of sleep or trance) it can extract information 
from all classical alternatives, or, in other words, from the whole quantum 
world. At the edge of consciousness one obtains access to the whole quan- 


turn world. This should supply additional (as compared with the regular 
functioning of consciousness) and quite unusual abilities. 

What are the features of these additional abilities of consciousness? We 
can immediately point out two of them. First, information 'from other clas- 
sical alternatives', i.e. from various scenarios possible for a classical world, 
allows one to compare these scenarios and conclude what scenario is the best 
(favorable for life). Later (Sect. 14. 2j) we shall see how this information may 
be used. 

Second, in the Everett concept the quantum world as a whole (i.e. without 
separation of the alternatives) is reversible. Its image is a four- dimensional 
manifold rather than a three-dimensional space developing in time. When 
consciousness looks out from a single alternative into this reversible world, 
it can take information from any part of this world. Returning from the 
quantum world as a whole to 'its own classical reality', the consciousness may 
possess information extracted not only from 'other (alternative) scenarios', 
but also from any stage of these scenarios, including information from the 
future of each scenario. This argument hints that predictions made in sleep 
or trance may be possible. We see also that predictions should have relative 
rather than absolute character. Indeed, they depend on the concrete scenario: 
the predictions become true only if the given scenario will be realized in the 
course of the further evolution of 'my own classical reality'. 

There are many evidences of successful predictions made by some people 
in sleep or in trance. Many of these evidences seem to be well documented. 
The consideration in the framework of EEC may explain both the feasibility 
of successful predictions and relative character of each prediction, i.e. its not 
full reliability. One may think that a prediction made in explicitly relative 
form (something will happen under the condition that something else will 
do) should be more reliable (if the predictions made by the same person are 
compared) . 

4.2 Modification of probabilities: Free will and prob- 
abilistic miracles 

Up to now our consideration was based only on the Everett's interpretation 
of quantum mechanics and the identification of consciousness with the sep- 
aration of alternatives. Let us now accept an additional assumption that 
consciousness may modify probabilities of classical alternatives. From the 


point of view of an observer this means that, perceiving a definite (alter- 
native) classical reality she may have influence on what alternative she will 
perceive in the next moment (next observation). Probabilities of some of the 
'next moment' alternatives (which seem to be favorable) may be increased, 
while the probabilities of others decreased. 

Why this assumption seems to be natural in the context of EEC? It looks 
natural because in the framework of this concept separation of the alterna- 
tives is considered from two qualitatively different points of view. First, from 
the point of view of quantum mechanics (describing only non-alive matter, 
including although bodies of living beings when they are considered simply as 
physical systems), and second, from the point of view of psychology. There is 
only one universal probability distribution in quantum mechanics (|cjp in the 
previous example), but the probabilities may in principle be different from 
the point of view of the consciousness of a living being: various observers 
may elaborate different probability distributions for what alternatives they 
are going to see. 

There are two evident objections against this assumption. First one is 
purely mathematical. The probability of the ith alternative is naturally de- 
fined as the 'relative number' Ni/N of the Everett's worlds of the definite 
type, such that just the ith alternative is realized in all of them. At first 
glance, this definition is unambiguous and should imply a universal proba- 
bility distribution. However, this is not the case if the 'number of Everett's 
worlds' is infinite fOI Q]- If both Ni and N are infinite, this 'definition' 
becomes ambiguous because of a paradoxical feature of an infinite set: its 
proper subset may be put in one-to-one correspondence with the whole set. 
Because of this, different probability distributions on an infinite set are com- 

This becomes obvious if one make use of a naive picture where each of the 
observers sends her 'twin-observers', one after another, into various Everett's 
worlds. Let for simplicity we have two observers and two types of Everett's 
worlds. El and E2 (with the infinite numbers of worlds of each type). One 
of the two observers may send his 'twins' according to the rule: each twin 
having odd number goes to a world of type Ei and each even twin, to a 
world of type E2. The other observer may use another rule: each twin with 
the number divisible by 3 goes to an Everett's world of type Ei while the 
rest are sent to the worlds of type E2. Then the probability for the first 
observer to find herself in the world of type Ei is equal to 1/2, while for the 
second observer it is equal to 1/3. Nevertheless, in case of infinite number 


of worlds and of twins, all twins will be distributed between the worlds, and 
each Everett's world will obtain a single twin of the first observer and a single 
twin of the second one. 

There is another objection against the discussed assumption. If probabil- 
ities are not universal, then laws of nature may be violated, but they seem 
to always endure experimental check-up. The answer to this objection is 
that the experimental check-up is feasible only for very simple events (such 
as where an electron should fly etc.). For the events of this type conscious- 
ness hardly may modify probabilities because these events are not important 
from the point of view of living beings. Since laws of physics govern only 
such simple events (and rather simple combinations of them), the laws of 
physics should be valid. If the ability of consciousness to modify probabili- 
ties may exist, then it should concern only 'significant' (for life) events. Such 
events have much more complicated structure and cannot be reduced to sim- 
ple events investigated by physicists. Therefore, probabilities of these highly 
complicated (from the point of view of a physicist) 'significant events' cannot 
be calculated with the help of quantum-mechanical formulas. The question 
about violation of laws of physics in the scope of such events (in the sphere 
of life) is therefore meaningless. 

Taking these arguments into account, we may assume that consciousness 
may modify probabihties of classical alternatives. How this abihty of con- 
sciousness may manifest itself? First of all it is evident that 'probabilistic 
miracles' become possible under this assumption. This means that conscious- 
ness may increase the probability of an event which otherwise seems almost 
improbable. The probability may even be made close to unity. In the lat- 
ter case modifying probabilities looks as a choice of a definite alternative. 
However, this is not a choice but only modification of probabilities, since all 
non-zero probabilities remain non-zero (although may become very close to 
zero). The event that is chosen by consciousness (and therefore looks to be a 
miracle) always has non-zero probability even without modification of proba- 
bilities. It is therefore feasible event even in 'natural' conditions, without any 
infiuence of consciousness. The realization of an event which is characterized 
by a low probability, does not strictly speaking violate any laws. Instead, it 
may seem a rare coincidence. For example, if someone says that she wishes 
to stop rain, and the rain stops, then this may be a probabilistic miracle, but 
instead it may be interpreted as a coincidence. 

There is one more class of well known and not exotic events which also can 
be explained with modifying probabilities by consciousness. These are events 


realizing what is called free will. If I wish to go to the right and actually 
go to the right, how this happens? In fact, there is no explanation of this 
simple ability of consciousness. In the framework of EEC, if the modification 
of probabilities is assumed, free will is explained quite naturally. There are 
two alternatives: in one Everett's world I go to the right, in the other one I go 
to the left. Both alternatives have non-zero probabilities. My consciousness 
modifies the probabilities increasing the probability of the first alternative. 
As a result, with a high probability I go to the right. I chose to go to the 
right. This was my free will. 

It worth noting that in most cases free will is realized 'unconsciously', i.e. 
in the state 'on the edge of consciousness' (in this case only a part of the 
consciousness is 'almost turned off', namely the part controlling the body's 
movements). This is in accord with our prediction that the special abilities of 
consciousness should manifest themselves just in this state. We shall return 
to this important point in Sect. 14.31 

4.3 Unconscious: the miracle of life 

According to EEC, at the edge of consciousness it has access to information 
from the whole quantum world, i.e. from various classical realities (classical 
scenarios). Moreover, if consciousness may modify probabilities of alterna- 
tives, it may choose (make more probable) those alternatives (classical reali- 
ties) that are favorable for life. Thus, the unusual information obtained from 
the quantum world can be used for improving quality of life. This may shed 
light on many phenomena in the sphere of life that are well-known and seem 
quite usual, but in reality have no explanation up to now. These phenomena 
may in fact be called miracles of life. 

Two important examples are, first, the health and its support and second, 
the role of sleep. It is commonly believed that health is supported due to 
the great efficiency of the organism as a self-regulating machine. However, it 
is difficult to imagine that an organism is efficient enough to support health 
during the whole life, despite of enormous number of unpredictable damages 
happening in this life. It seems almost evident that periodic usage of some 
data base is necessary for correcting these damages. But what is this data 
base and what is the mechanism of its usage, remains unknown. 

In the phenomenon of sleep, among many astonishing facts, the most 
strange seems the fact that regular sleeping is absolutely necessary not only 
for health, but even for very life. A man certainly dies if he is deprived 


of sleep during few weeks. Why? The common opinion that sleep supplies 
rest for all systems of organism is evidently insufficient to explain absolute 
necessity of regular sleeping. 

Our consideration in the framework of EEC suggests an explanation of 
both these strange features of life: permanent support of health and ne- 
cessity of sleep. During sleep (or rather during a definite phase of sleep, 
called paradoxical sleep) a man is at the edge of consciousness and therefore 
obtains information from alternative classical scenarios. She can compare 
various scenarios, particularly various scenarios for the body, and find out 
what scenarios are favorable. Returning, after the sleep, to the usual state, 
consciousness increases probabilities of just these scenarios. This is a mech- 
anism of permanent support of health. It is known that paradoxical sleep of 
old people becomes shorter. Perhaps this is the main reason why their health 
is not supported well enough. 

In this explanation, the hypothetical data base containing recommen- 
dations for health is nothing else than the set of all possible scenarios for 
functioning the body. This data base is always actual because conscious- 
ness may compare those scenarios that start from the present state of the 
body. This returns us to the arguments of Sect. 13.21 Once more, now on a 
more concrete level, we may conclude that the mystery and miracle of life is 
connected with quantum definition of consciousness, as it is given in EEC. 

There is one more unsolved problem in biology that also could obtain its 
explanation in EEC. This is the problem of morphogenesis. How an embryo is 
constructed starting from a single cell? Where is a plan of the process of con- 
structing it, step by step, or how constructing is controlled and directed? It is 
possible that the answer is analogous to the argument above: 'consciousness' 
(the primitive-level consciousness, or ability to somehow perceive, which is 
connected with a living being from the very beginning) periodically addresses 
to the quantum world as a whole, compare various scenarios of constructing 
embryo (various 'building plans') and then, returning to the usual state, in- 
crease probabilities of those scenarios that lead to the right construction. Of 
course, this is only a sketch of a possible explanation of the phenomenon, its 
main idea. 


4.4 Flow of time and decreasing entropy in the sphere 
of Ufe 

One of the problems permanently discussed in literature is how irreversibility 
arises if all equations presenting dynamics of physical systems are reversible 
in time (see for example In the framework of EEC this problem obtains 

natural solution: quantum world is reversible (and thus reversible is micro- 
scopical theory of non-alive matter, its dynamics), while pictures of (alter- 
native) classical realities appearing in consciousness are irreversible. Indeed, 
in quantum mechanics irreversibility might appear in the course of reduc- 
tion, but reduction is excluded from the Everett's interpretation of quantum 
mechanics (see Sect. El). In the framework of EEC we have, instead of reduc- 
tion, separation of alternatives which is identified with consciousness. Thus, 
irreversibility appears only in consciousness. 

The quantum world as a whole, without separation of classical alterna- 
tives, is (in EEC) reversible. Its adequate image is given by 4-dimensional 
manifold with all times considered on equal foot. However, in the picture 
seen by an observer as an (alternative) classical reality, the 'present' time 
moment is distinguished, radically differs from the past and the future. It 
is the moment when consciousness chooses (with the help of modification of 
probabilities) the concrete alternative it will see in the next moment. While 
the quantum world looks as something given in its wholeness, an (alternative) 
classical reality is permanently becoming. Time moments in an (alternative) 
classical reality are divided on the past (when this concrete alternative real- 
ity is fixed), the future (when many alternative continuations exist^ for this 
concrete alternative reality), and the present (when the choice of future is 

One more important unsolved problem is decreasing of entropy in the 
sphere of life where the processes of self-organization are not only possible 
but necessary. This contradicts to the general principle accepted in physics 
and confirmed many times: entropy may only be constant or increase. In the 
framework of EEC this contradiction disappears because the spheres where 

^Possibility of various continuations of a given 'classical reality' seemingly contradicts to 
the previous statement about 'classical world' being locally predictable. However, various 
continuations are in fact possible (although they cannot differ too much from each other) 
because the 'classical reality' is not precisely classical, but rather close to classical. This 
possibility may be characterized in an adequate way in terms of continuous quantum 
measurements (see [T7)]^. 


entropy correspondingly increases or decreases, are separated. 

The quantum world as a whole is reversible, and its entropy is constant. 
The entropy of a restricted region of the quantum world may increase. How- 
ever, in the sphere of life (which includes consciousness working with alter- 
native classical realities) entropy may decrease. Moreover, it is necessary 
decreasing for the set of classical scenarios realizing life. This is because con- 
sciousness regularly compare alternative classical scenarios and choose (by 
modification of probabilities) those of them which are favorable for life. The 
deep reason of decreasing entropy is that the concept of the goal arises in the 
sphere of life. Another important point is that entropy in the sphere of life 
characterizes not all possible classical scenarios but only those favorable for 
fife (selected according to the goal of improving quality of fife) . 

5 Conclusion 

We have seen that Extended Everett Concept (EEC) may give a quantum 
definition of consciousness: consciousness is separation of the alternatives. 
This puts forward a novel view of a difficult question, what is life. Possessing 
the ability to compare various classical scenarios and choose the most favor- 
able of them, quantum consciousness turns out to be the very essence of life 
and explains such important phenomena in the sphere of life as free will and 
efficient support of health. Besides, EEC explains why decreasing entropy in 
the sphere of life is compatible with the general law of increasing entropy. It 
becomes clear that entropy in the sphere of life is decreasing because life is 
presented by a subset of specially selected scenarios. 

Consciousness, as it is defined in EEC, is a general part of two quali- 
tatively different spheres of cognition. Being defined as a separation of al- 
ternatives, consciousness is a part of quantum physics, therefore, of natural 
sciences. Being a special phenomenon characteristic of living beings, con- 
sciousness belongs to psychology, therefore, to the humanitarians or, more 
generally, to the sphere of knowledge about spirit. Thus, quantum conscious- 
ness, in the sense of EEC, is a common part of, and provides a bridge between, 
these two spheres. This seems very interesting because the two spheres are 
often considered as having nothing in common (although the conceptual re- 
lations between them do of course exist and are actively discussed). It seems 
to us that EEC is one of few approaches that establish deep internal connec- 
tion between natural sciences and humanitarians, penetrating deeper in the 


nature of life and human consciousness. EEC lowers the draw-bridge (see 
Fig. 121) over the deep precipice dividing two spheres of cognition, the world 
of matter and the world of spirit. 


[1] H. Everett III. 'Relative state' formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. 
Mod. Phys., 29:454-462, 1957. Reprinted in J. A. Wheeler and W. H. 
Zurek, editors. Quantum Theory and Measurement, Princeton Univer- 
sity Press, Princeton, 1983. 

[2] B. S. DeWitt and N. Graham, editors. The Many-Worlds Interpretation 
of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, 1973. 

[3] Euan Squires. The Mystery of the Quantum World. lOP Publishing, 
Bristol and Philadelphia, 1994. Second edition. 

[4] Michael Lockwood. 'Many minds' interpretations of quantum mechanics. 
Brit. J. Phil. Scz., 47:159-188, 1996. 

[5] Andrew Whitaker. Many minds and single mind interpretations of quan- 
tum theory. In Ph. Blanchard et al., editors, Decoherence: Theoreti- 
cal, Experimental, and Conceptual Problems, pages 299-307, Berlin etc., 
2000. Springer. 

[6] H. D.Zeh. The problem of conscious observation in quantum mechanical 
description. Found. Phys. Lett., 13, 221, 2000. 

[7] Henry P. Stapp. Von Neumann's formulation of quantum theory and 
the role of mind in nature. Found, of Phys., 31:1465-1499, 2001. 

[8] Michael B. Mensky, Quantum mechanics: New experiments, new ap- 
plications and new formulations of old questions, Physics-Uspekhi,43, 
585-600, 2000. 

[9] M. B. Mensky, Quantum mechanics, consciousness, and a bridge be- 
tween the two cultures, "Voprosy Filosofii" ("Issues in Philosophy") 
No.6, p.64-74, 2004 [in Russian]. 


Michael B. Mensky, Concept of consciousness in the context of quantum 
mechanics, Physics-Uspekhi 48, 389-409 (2005). 

M. B. Mensky, Human and quantum world (Weirdness of the quantum 
world and the miracle of consciousness), Fryazino, Editorial "Vek 2", 
2005 [in Russian]. 

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical de- 
scription of physical reahty be considered complete? Phys. Rev., 47:777- 
780, 1935. 

J. S. Bell. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1:195-200, 
1964. Reprinted in jE]. 

J. S. Bell. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cam- 
bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987. 

Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, and Gerard Roger. Experimental tests 
of realistic local theories via Bell's theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett., 47:460- 
463, 1981. 

Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and Gerard Roger. Experimental test 
of Bell's inequalities using time- varying analyzers. Phys. Rev. Lett., 
49:1804-1807, 1982. 

H. D. Zeh, The Physical Basis of The Direction of Time, Fourth edition, 
Springer, 2001. 


^ = 

= ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ X" ■ • • ■ 

>p = 1+1 m 1+1 . . . 1+1 % i+i . . . 

Figure 1: No separation, or non-alive matter (top diagram); separation, or 
consciousness (middle); weak separation, or 'at the edge of consciousness' 

Qu. physics 






Qu. physics 

Quantum consciousness 






Figure 2: Lowering the draw-bridge: Identifying 'Separation' and 'Conscious- 
ness' gives 'Quantum Consciousness'. This supplies a bridge between natural 
sciences and humanitarians, between the spheres of matter and spirit